The piece calls out a Minneapolis police chief for misusing the Christmas story to defend a political stance on immigration, arguing he showed theological ignorance while the Left selectively invokes Christianity when it suits their policy arguments.

The Left often treats Christianity like a tool to be picked up or set down depending on whether it helps their policy case, and that pick-and-choose approach frustrates people across the spectrum. They insist believers keep their faith private on some hot-button issues while expecting faith-driven compliance on others. The result is a smorgasbord of moral inconsistency that looks less like conviction and more like political theater.

Immigration is their favorite example for weaponizing religion, as if ancient Judea under Roman rule had the same legal system or sovereign context as modern America. People point to Mary and Joseph as if their story were a mirror for contemporary border policy, ignoring the historical and legal specifics that make the comparison meaningless. That sloppy analogy is what got the Minneapolis chief into hot water.

When public figures start sentences with “Having been raised a Catholic,” you should brace for shaky theology and worse, sloppy history dressed up as moral certainty. The Christmas narrative is often treated like a moral shortcut, but a closer look shows Joseph was following a law that required registration in his ancestral city. Bethlehem was Joseph’s hometown, and the census purposefully brought residents back to their places of origin for record-keeping and tax purposes.

The overcrowded lodging was a practical outcome of many people returning home at the same time, not evidence of modern-style xenophobia or immigration enforcement gone wrong. Saying the Holy Family were “forced” to stay in a barn ignores the logistics and social customs of the time. Oversimplifying that account to score political points about immigration does a disservice to both history and faith.

Calling the chief theologically illiterate is blunt, but the point stands: public leaders should not trade on religious stories they clearly do not understand. That kind of half-formed moralizing invites ridicule and undermines genuine faith-based arguments. If you want to use scripture in public policy debates, at least know the story you are citing.

There is also a practical side to this debate that gets lost when the conversation turns to biblical analogies. Law and order, proper vetting, and the safety of communities are not partisan preferences; they are basic responsibilities of governance. When officials blur religious narrative and civic duty, they risk confusing the public and weakening trust in institutions meant to protect citizens.

Critics are quick to point out how absurd the comparison sounds when you line it up against actual cases. People cite recent arrests and criminal convictions involving noncitizens to argue for stricter enforcement and better immigration policy. Those examples are meant to show the stakes involved when policy is lax and politics substitutes for sober judgment.

Throwing faith around as a rhetorical cudgel also alienates many believers who want their religion respected, not twisted. Faith communities expect leaders to treat sacred stories with seriousness, not as props for policy theater. When politicians treat religious narratives opportunistically, they damage the credibility of both religion and responsible policy debate.

There’s a clear difference between compassionate, practical border policy and poetic comparisons that ignore context and legal realities. Conversations about immigration deserve nuance, not theatrical scripture readings that collapse history into a sound bite. Leaders should focus on solutions grounded in law, safety, and a respect for the religious traditions they invoke.

Here’s more:

Here are a few of the dangerous creeps  @ICEGov  has arrested in the last few days. 

-Vannaleut Keomany, a 59-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of two counts of rape. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison. Keomany has had a final order of removal since December 17, 2009.

-Por Moua, a 50-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of first-degree great bodily harm and sentenced to 14 years and seven months; third-degree sexual conduct and sentenced to 18 months; sexual intercourse with a CHILD (in California) and sentenced to 210 days; and false imprisonment (in California) and sentenced to a year and four months. Moua has had a final order of removal since October 31, 2000.

-Tou Vang, a 42-year-old criminal illegal alien from Laos who was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a child under 13. Vang has had a final order of removal since October 31, 2006.

-Ban Du La Sein, a 47-year-old criminal illegal alien from Burma who has been convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct using force or coercion in Nobles County. He was sentenced to four years in prison and 10 years of probation. Du La Sein has had a final order of removal since February 27, 2014.

@GovTimWalz and @MayorFrey owe @ICEGov a big thank you.

Comparing victims of criminal behavior to biblical refugees is not a fair or honest reading of scripture, and equating every immigration case with the Holy Family is a shortcut that obscures real policy choices. The public deserves leaders who can make clear distinctions and propose concrete fixes rather than leaning on clumsy theological references. Respect for faith demands more careful use of its stories in the public square.

Literally everything. We’re surprised he got “Joseph” and “Mary” correct.

“And I believe I have more authority than the Pope, Catholic doctrine, and American federal law.”